On 8 September 2016 at 20:17, John Griffith <john.griffi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Jeremy Stanley <fu...@yuggoth.org> wrote: > > <snip> > > they should be able to simply install it and its free dependencies >> and get a working system that can communicate with "supported" >> hardware without needing to also download and install separate >> proprietary tools from the hardware vendor. It's not what we say >> today, but it's what I personally feel like we *should* be saying. > > > Your view on what you feel we *should* say, is exactly how I've > interpreted our position in previous discussions within the Cinder > project. Perhaps I'm over reaching in my interpretation and that's why > this is so hotly debated when I do see it or voice my concerns about it. > > Despite the fact I've appeared to be slightly disagreeing with John in the IRC discussion on this subject, you've summarised my concern very well. I'm not convinced that these support tools need to be open source, but they absolutely need to be licensed in such a way that distributions can repackage them and freely distribute them. I'm not aware of any tools currently required by cinder where this is not the case, but a few of us are in the process of auditing this to make sure we understand the situation before we clarify our rules. -- Duncan Thomas
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
